AuthorTopic: LSAT means nothing in the big picture (Read 2774 times)

I have spoken to, and read on what some lawyers have said about the LSAT. For the most part it has nothing to do on how successful you are in law school and in your law practice. Now this is my opinion: Just another money making idea, and to place another obstacle for students that want to go into a field that already has to many lawyers. For those on the fence become a paralegal and you will make decent pay if you are good and the demand for paralegals is actually higher than lawyers because they do similar work for a much cheaper price.

The LSAT is not a perfect predictor of law school success, but it's not meaningless, either. The LSAT tests the type of logical reasoning and reading comprehension which are essential to law school success. It also tests how well the taker is able to prepare and to master new concepts. If the correlation between high LSAT scores and law school performance wasn't well established, why would law schools offer scholarships to applicants with high scores?

The law schools can simply look at the statistical data from previous classes and see the correlation between LSAT score, grades, and bar pass rates. They want students who will pass the bar the first time, and LSAT scores are indicative of this.

Does any of this mean that a low LSAT score guarantees failure in law school or in legal practice? No, of course not. Anyone can have a bad morning and get a low score, but no one accidentally scores 170. A high LSAT score is a decent predictor of potential.

That is true - it doesn't matter in the big picture. Most of the students that did well my first year weren't necessarily the smartest ones, they were the ones that worked their @$$ off. While the LSAT may predict how well one will do in law school, it is a test that can be mastered through practice and prep courses. It really has no bearing on a student that doesn't want to work while in school or in the real world. Academia and the real world are so different in any profession. Unfortunately, standardized testing is the only tool available to determine a student's aptitude for undergrad or graduate schools.

The LSAT is an incredibly important filtration system. Is it a good predictor of law school success or eventual success as an attorney? I really have no idea. If you are smarter than average and you work hard, you can do very well in law school with a little bit of luck.

The attorneys who seem to find the most success financially are those rising stars at big firms, great entrepreneurship who build small firms and make money off their staff and associates, or brilliant salesmen. I know several PI attorneys who are filthy rich and they hardly do any of the actual legal work. I know one brilliant estate planning attorney who works at a medium firm and has a great reputation. He makes just over $80,000 a year (decent for the market). I know another estate planning attorney who is pretty dumb and procrastinates everything, but he manages to bring in clients who contest wills and he gets paid a 33% contingency on what he gets for them. His take home last year was $400,000 +.I worked for a medical malpractice attorney while I was studying for the bar. He worked about 20 hours a week, but he settled a 5million+ med mal case. (Translation, he took home 1.5 million.) He shares a secretary with some other solos and pays $800 a month in rent.

My point is that financial success may have a lot more to do with your personality, work ethic, and even luck than it does with intelligence. So it's possible that the LSAT is a decent indicator if intelligence even if it's not correlated with law school success or career success.

The LSAT is an incredibly important filtration system. Is it a good predictor of law school success or eventual success as an attorney? I really have no idea. If you are smarter than average and you work hard, you can do very well in law school with a little bit of luck.

The attorneys who seem to find the most success financially are those rising stars at big firms, great entrepreneurship who build small firms and make money off their staff and associates, or brilliant salesmen. I know several PI attorneys who are filthy rich and they hardly do any of the actual legal work. I know one brilliant estate planning attorney who works at a medium firm and has a great reputation. He makes just over $80,000 a year (decent for the market). I know another estate planning attorney who is pretty dumb and procrastinates everything, but he manages to bring in clients who contest wills and he gets paid a 33% contingency on what he gets for them. His take home last year was $400,000 +.I worked for a medical malpractice attorney while I was studying for the bar. He worked about 20 hours a week, but he settled a 5million+ med mal case. (Translation, he took home 1.5 million.) He shares a secretary with some other solos and pays $800 a month in rent.

My point is that financial success may have a lot more to do with your personality, work ethic, and even luck than it does with intelligence. So it's possible that the LSAT is a decent indicator if intelligence even if it's not correlated with law school success or career success.

Your argument is assuming that these lawyers did not score exceptionally well on the LSAT.